PVJunkie wrote: ... if you read the rules as if you are someone brand new to officiating and you have no knowledge of what the past rules were, how would you interpret all of this?
Here's my shot at this ambiguous rule ...
7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.
Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.
From google (when you search for "define dissacossociate
" and "define dissociate
another term for dissociate.
disconnect or separate (used especially in abstract contexts).
"voices should not be dissociated from their social context"
If you take the word "separate
" to mean "physically separate
", then I would agree that the vaulter is dissociatated with the pole the moment he releases it.
HOWEVER, notice that the definition further explains: "(used especially in abstract contexts)
", and gives the example of "voices should not be dissociated from their social context
The words in brackets mean that 2 objects can still be associated even if physically
separated. In the PV context (using the concept of the vaulter-pole system
as a single entity, controlled by the vaulter), this means (to me at least) that the vaulter is NOT dissociated from the pole the moment he releases it. Instead, it means (to me at least) that the vaulter continues
to be in control of the pole (thus still associated
with it) after release. Exceptions would be outside factors (wind, other humans, etc) that are DISSOCIATED with the vaulter and the pole.
But I do agree that this is a grey area, requiring better explicit language of what the rule-makers really meant.
I agree that you cannot look at previous wordings of the rule to interpret any new wordings. The new wordings should stand on their own. In this case they apparently don't, so the rule-makers need to go back to the drawing board (to RE-WRITE the rule based on their INTENT).
PVJunkie wrote: Rule 7-5-27a still says
- It is a foul if the competitor:
a. Displaces the crossbar from the pins on which it originally rested, with the body or pole
7-5-27a lends further credence to the concept of the vaulter still being responsible for any actions of the pole after it's released. For the strict interpretation of rule 7-2-11 to mean that the vaulter isn't responsible for the pole once released to hold water, I think this rule 7-5-27a would also have to explicitly remove the words "or pole
In fact, what are the circumstances in which rule 7-5-27a would be applied due to the pole
displacing the crossbar?
There are only 2 that I can think of: (1) If the vaulter continues to hang onto the pole, with the vaulter clearing the bar but the pole knocking it down; and (2) if the vaulter releases the pole, but the momentum of the pole (in a forwards direction) knocks down the bar.
In scenario (1), I think all of us would agree that it's a miss.
In scenario (2) --- the scenario that we're debating --- it's subject to the official's interpretation of whether it was (a) the vaulter or (b) OUTSIDE FACTORS that caused the pole to dislodge the bar.
Based on the definition of the words dissassociate
, I think (IMHO) that if the vaulter (knowing that the pole is longer than the height of the crossbar) failed to push it back (towards the runway), then it was (a) --- it was his/her fault that the bar was dislodged by the pole; not (b).
I also happen to agree that it would be simpler (thus less subjective, thus perhaps fairer for all) if the official didn't have to make a judgement call on the cause of the bar dislodging. However, in the absence of any explicit rule, no one (except the rule-makers) should inject their own simplifications of these rules.
We can't have it both ways - we cannot argue on the side of strict rule interpretation of exactly what the rule says, and then also argue that the rule's too complicated, so it should be subject to interpretation in order to be less subjective.
This is all just IMHO, of course.Bottom line
: Implore the rule-makers to improve the wording, so that the intent
of the rules cannot be misunderstood.